Jsmc-10242

THE SUCCESS RATE OF VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN SECTION USING VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN SECTION SCORE

Taban Aziz Sidiq a and Sallama Kamel Nasir b

a Sulaimani Maternity Teaching Hospital, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

b Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

Submitted: 18/6/2019; Accepted: 17/2/2020; Published: 21/3/2020

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.17656/jsmc.10242

ABSTRACT

Background

Increasing cesarean section (C/S) rate had been led to the creation of many models for assessing the success of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) with the aim of reducing C/S.

Objectives

Assessment of VBAC success by VBAC score (Flamm Model); including each of its items, maternal body weight and fetal outcomes.

Patients and Methods

This is a cross-sectional study including 106 pregnant ladies who had history of previous C/S and admitted to Sulaimani Maternity Teaching Hospital, Sulaimani, Kurdistan/Iraq, during April the 1st, 2018 to April the 1st, 2019. Flamm Model [Maternal age, history of vaginal birth, reasons other than failure to progress for first C/S, cervical effacement, and cervical dilatation] scoring was used for assessment of VBAC success. The body mass index (BMI), mode of delivery, fetal and maternal outcomes were also recorded.

Results

There was significant association of Flamm Model scores with VBAC success rate {P-value “Pearson’s R Correlation (r)” = <0.001 (-0.742)}, i.e., the success rate was higher when the score was high. There were significant association of VBAC success rate with vaginal birth history, cervical effacement, cervical dilatation, fetal health, and BMI {P-value (r) = 0.047 (-0.101), <0.001 (-0.632), 0.001 (-0.329), <0.001 (0.39), and 0.001 (0.271)}, respectively. There were insignificant association between VBAC success rate with maternal age, reasons other than failure to progress for first C/S, and fetal weight {P-value (r) = 0.59 (0.053), 0.126 (0.148), and 0.21 (0.121)}.

Conclusion

Flamm Model is effective way of assessing VBAC and it can be used in our population.

KEYWORDS

Cesarean section, Flamm model, Vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC).

References

1- Mooney SS, Hiscock R, Clarke ID, Craig S. Estimating success of vaginal birth after caesarean section in a regional Australian population: Validation of a prediction model. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 59: 66–70.

2- Wyckoff ET, Cua GM, Gibson DJ, Egerman RS. Efficacy of the NICHD vaginal birth after cesarean delivery calculator: a single center experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;10:1-5.

3- Haumonte JB, Raylet M, Christophe M, Mauviel F, Bertrand A, Desbriere R, et al. French validation and adaptation of the Grobman nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(3):127-31.

4- Yang M, Guo ZW, Deng CJ, Liang X, Tan GJ, Jiang J, et al. A comparative study of three different forecasting methods for trial of labor after cesareansection. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019;45(1):119-125.

5- Smith GCS. Delivery after previous cesarean section. In: James D, Steer PJ, Crowther CA, Weiner CP, Robson SC, Gonik B, (editors). High risk pregnancy management options. 4th ed. China: Elsevier; 2011.

6- Gupta JK, Smith GCS, Chodankar RR, Alfirevic Z, Baines SM, Bewley S, et al. Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth (Green-top Guideline No. 45). London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2015.

7- Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, et al. Williams Obstetrics. 25th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.

8- Luesley DM, Kilby MD. OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY: AN EVIDENCE-BASED TEXT FOR MRCOG. 3rd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.

9- Maykin MM, Mularz AJ, Lee LK, Valderramos SG. Validation of a Prediction Model for Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery Reveals Unexpected Success in a Diverse American Population. Am J Perinatol Rep 2017;7:e31–e38.

10- Sudhof LS. Has P, Rouse DJ, Hughes BL. Choice of Trial of Labor after Cesarean and Association with Likelihood of Success. Am J Perinatol. 2018;35(9):892-7.

11- Kalok A, Zabil SA, Jamil MA, Lim PS, Shafiee MN, Kampan N, et al. Antenatal scoring system in predicting the success of planned vaginal birth following one previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(3):339-43.

12- Xing YP, Qi XY, Wang XZ, Yang FZ. Development of a modified score system as prediction model for successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Clin Transl Sci. 2019;12(1):53-7.

13- Tilden EL, Cheyney M, Guise JM, Emeis C, Lapidus J, Biel FM, et al. Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Neonatal Outcomes and United States Birth Setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 216(4): 403.e1–403.e8.

14- Flamm BL, Geiger AM. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: an admission scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(6):907-10.

15- Elfil M, Negida A. Sampling methods in Clinical Research; an Educational Review. Emergency. 2017;5(1):e52.

16- Sahu R, Chaudhary N, Sharma A. Prediction of successful vaginal birth after caesarean section based on Flamm and Geiger scoring system a prospective observational study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2018;7:3998- 4002.

17- Patel MD, Maitra N, Patel PK, Sheth T, Vaishnav P. Predicting Successful Trial of Labor After Cesarean Delivery: Evaluation of Two Scoring Systems. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2018;68(4):276-282.

18- Sakiyeva KZ, Abdelazim IA, Farghali M, Zhumagulova SS, Dossimbetova MB, Sarsenbaev MS, et al. Outcome of the vaginal birth after cesarean section during the second birth order in West Kazakhstan. J Family Med Prim Care. 2018;7(6):1542–1547.

19- Birara M, Gebrehiwot Y. Factors associated with success of vaginal birth after one caesarean section (VBAC) at three teaching hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a case control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:31.

Full Text

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.